Background and Aims: The disease course of microscopic colitis [MC] is considered chronic but benign. However, this assumption is based on mainly retrospective studies, reporting on incomplete follow-up of selective cohorts. Systematic, prospective and unbiased data to inform patients and healthcare professionals on the expected course of the disease and real-life response to therapy are warranted. Methods: A prospective, pan-European, multi-centre, web-based registry was established. Incident cases of MC were included. Data on patient characteristics, symptoms, treatment and quality of life were systematically registered at baseline and during real-time follow-up. Four disease course phenotypes were discriminated and described. Results: Among 381 cases with complete 1-year follow-up, 49% had a chronic active or relapsing disease course, 40% achieved sustained remission after treatment and 11% had a quiescent course. In general, symptoms and quality of life improved after 3 months of follow-up. A relapsing or chronic active disease course was associated with significantly more symptoms and impaired quality of life after 1 year. Conclusions: A minority of MC patients follow a quiescent disease course with spontaneous clinical improvement, whereas the majority suffer a chronic active or relapsing disease course during the first year after diagnosis, with persisting symptoms accompanied by a significantly impaired quality of life.

Background and study aims The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) is a novel tool used to improve the maintenance of hemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB); however, studies on the comparison with “conventional” techniques are lacking. In this study, we aimed to compare first-line endoscopic hemostasis achieved using conventional techniques with that achieved using OTSC placement for NVUGIB. Patients and methods From January 2007 to March 2018, 793 consecutive patients underwent upper endoscopy with the hemostasis procedure. Among them, 327 patients were eligible for inclusion (112 patients had OTSC placement and 215 underwent conventional hemostasis). After propensity score matching and adjustment for confounding factors, 84 patients were stratified into the “conventional” group and 84 into the OTSC group. Patient characteristics and outcomes (rebleeding rate, mortality rate within 30 days, and adverse events) were compared between the two groups. Results In the unmatched cohort, hemostasis with OTSC was more frequent in cases of duodenal ulcers with Forrest Ia to IIa and in patients with a higher Rockall score compared with the “conventional group”. In the matched cohort, 93 % of the patients in the “conventional group” underwent hemostasis with epinephrine + through-the-scope clip. Rebleeding events were significantly less frequent in the OTSC group (8 % vs 20 %, 95 %CI 3 – 16 vs 12 – 30; P = 0.02); however, the mortality rate in the two groups was not significantly different (6 % vs 2 %, 95 %CI 1 – 8 vs 2 – 13; P = 0.4). Conclusions OTSC is a safe and effective tool for achieving hemostasis, and we recommend its use as the first-line therapy for lesions with a high risk of rebleeding and in patients with a high risk Rockall score.

Background/Objectives: The administration of propofol without an anesthesiologist (NAAP) during endoscopic procedures is generally considered safe. However, the available data remain limited and fragmented due to legal constraints. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the incidence of adverse events in adults undergoing procedural sedation with NAAP. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) for studies published between 2010 and 2023. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that reported predefined adverse events in adult patients receiving NAAP for procedural sedation. The analysis encompassed various types of endoscopic procedures and sedation protocols, including both balanced sedation and propofol monotherapy. Clinical heterogeneity was assessed by comparing patient characteristics, sedation methods, and outcome measures across studies. A random effects model was used for the meta-analysis, with results presented as estimated incidence rates. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on the hypoxia severity, sedation approach, and procedure type. Results: The search yielded 2963 records, of which 73 studies met the inclusion criteria, covering a total of 967,238 procedural sedations. Hypoxia was the most frequently reported adverse event, occurring in 40‰ of cases, followed by hypotension (38‰) and bradycardia (9‰). Severe adverse events requiring emergency intervention were rare, with an incidence of 0.12‰. The subgroup analysis indicated a low occurrence (6‰) of severe desaturation (SpO₂ < 80%) and no significant differences in adverse event rates between balanced propofol sedation and propofol-only sedation. However, advanced endoscopic procedures (EUS, ERCP, PEG, enteroscopy, EMR/ESD) were associated with a higher risk of hypoxia (10% vs. 26‰; p < 0.00001) and major complications (3.1‰ vs. 0.1‰; p = 0.015) compared to diagnostic procedures. Conclusions: NAAP-based procedural sedation appears to be generally safe. While the minor adverse event rates vary depending on the sedation regimen and procedure type, major complications remain exceptionally rare.